camera is just a tool.
most of the time for landscapes, people will pp and bother to pp.
colour out of camera is fluid, not set in stone, can adjust to taste.
ask yourself, why do you want a faster camera? do you hope that it improves your photography? if so, what are the problems you are intending to solve?
if it is macro, why need a faster camera? what is fast? what is the speed you are referring to?
if need landscape, i don't see the need for speed.
Secondly: when you "tested" those cameras, did you keep all conditions equal or was it just showroom snapping?
I believe you have been shooting for quite sometime right now since you have a 400D, if you have to ask this question in here then probably you would not need an upgrade.
But then camera is more of a personal preference, best thing is to go down to CSC or NSC to try both brands out for yourself.
Thanks to all bros who have contributed. It is really insightful hearing the different opinions and suggestions from newbies and senior members. Though I might not be able to afford some of the items, but it is good knowledge for me.
First - I wanted to upgrade because I wanted a 'faster' camera and a faster lens. I got these adjectives reading some of the bros' posting in other sections. I liked to shoot pictures in low light sans the flash, without a tripod (unless it is landscape). People in activity, in motion, but in low light. I get blurred images because my camera and lens are not 'fast' enough, if I am interpreting it correctly. Very frustrating because I missed the moment and I felt sorry for the people depending on me to capture a good shot.
Second - Since I am going for an upgrade, I thought it is also a good opportunity for me to explore/experiment another popular brand - Nikon. Of course there are other brands out there, but for a newbie, one would usually start with the popular brands first, and explore some other brands later, if one wants to. Does it make sense if I were to say they could be different in terms of picture output - not quality but rather which output appeals to me without any software manipulation? Or are they exactly the same? There is no good or bad in my opinion, just preference. Of course I can lug my lap top to the shop and take a sample picture and compare in the shop but I thought maybe a bit too over the top, since I am not spending like 10k in the shop. Shy lah.
Budget wise, 1.5 - 2.5k give and take, including one lens (not kit). I would probably get 2nd hand as they would work just as great.
I know at the end of the day, the decision lies with me. I am not asking any bros to decide for me, just opinions from their experiences. It will boil down to many factors - the feel of the camera, the ergonomic features, the design, the look, the brand, the sales person, opinions from the bros here, etc. Very subjective, but if I take subjectivity positively, it is very beneficial for a newbie like me.
sorry, can you elaborate on the conditions of the lighting in the location you are shooting the people (who are blurred) in?
if you haven't bumped up the iso, can try to bump.
lens has little to do with camera body, actually. so you should examine what is the main problem here, before just blindly buying to throw money against the problem to hope that money solves problems. most of the time, photography's limiting factor is the photographer.
understanding what helps to freeze motion also helps..
its the light~! so if its indoors and not enough ambient light, or you lens aperture is not wide enough.. then there are several things you can do...
change the sensitivity of the sensor to make it more sensitive to light~! Up ISO..
use the built in flash... (not really recommended cos looks harsh)..
buy an external flash and bounce the light..
sometimes even when you have a faster lens oso not enough light..
but yes, if you wanna take this time to upgrade since got alot of new models then just buy lor.. sell ur old cam lor..
To really shoot moving subjects (like people) well in low light (also depends how low is low), you need BOTH a camera with very good ISO performance and fast lenses.
That said, what you are looking for are FF cameras and 1.2/1.4 lenses.
It is very hard to even get a FF camera body with your budget, much less the fast lenses.
Adjust your budget to around 3-3.5k, you can get somewhere. But number of lenses you can get is limited.
Last edited by daredevil123; 17th August 2010 at 11:05 AM.
Pentax Kx? (ie. $790, with high ISO performance that betters more expensive models)
The FF cameras are out of this price range.
I understand what you mean by taking shots indoors w/ ppl relying you "Tommy; who has a big camera; Sure take good photos one "
I would rather advise you on trying to look at the following options :
1. Bump up the ISO
2. Turn on the lights or get the folks to move closer to a better lit portion of the room/s
3. Get a flash that has a swivel head for bounced flash or get it off camera with a wireless system. It does not need to look unnatural, and this is esp. so when you start to bounce the flash from the top and to a side. It can well look like window light.
Want warmer light? Use a gel, or just add warmth to the photo during PP.
These options not only save you money, improves technique and opens new areas of photography. So no real loss really.
Last edited by pinholecam; 17th August 2010 at 11:22 AM.
TS: If you want to stick with Canon, get the XXD or 7D series. You will never regret the additional functionality over the XXXD series.
Switching to other brands like Nikon is only viable if you have not build up a collection of lens, i.e still using your kit lens.
Canon EOS 30D , EF 17-40mm F4L USM , EF-S 55-250mm F/4-5.6 IS
Examples of conditions - outdoor in the evening, under limited lightings from lamppost or other light sources. Or in a restaurant/house taking pictures of food, people in nice ambient light. Not dark like I can't even make ot the faces. Can see faces clearly, but not very bright, with slight movements but not like playing sports kinda movement.
I don't really like to use flash, totally destroys the pictures IMO (unless it is a studio shoot). I tried adjusting aperture using AP, but of course the camera automatically adjusts the shutter speed too. I have experimented with adjusting aperture and shutter to allow more light and increasing ISO. Picture (and lighting) looks ok but blur, due to myself - not stable enough. Then I see some other photographers next to me, snapping away without flash with a DSLR (higher model, different brands). Of course I am assuming their pictures will turn out fine. Hence I research and come to the conclusion that my equiments are not fast enough. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Budget wise I can stretch a bit to accomodate the body. I have already sold my 400D with kit lens.
Question : To start off here, is it better to get a lower range camera (eg Canon 550D or Nikon D90) and a better (faster) lens, or a better camera with kit lens (Canon 50D, 7D, 5D or Nikon D300s,etc)? I am open to 2nd hand gear and of course will upgrade the lens a step at a time while working on my skills which is just as, if not more important than the gear.
The first option will have most value remaining in your better lens which will not depreciate as fast as the body does. However, using the 550D/D90 over your previous 400D is only an incremental upgrade - you dont get any significant benefits.
IMO, you should get the better camera 50D/7D etc , then perhaps get a 2nd hand Tamron which will perform better then the kit lens.
Canon EOS 30D , EF 17-40mm F4L USM , EF-S 55-250mm F/4-5.6 IS
You camera is good enough. What lens are you using for macro & landscapes? For macro, I suggest that you invest in a dedicated macro lens and a simple flash for the setup. For landscapes, you can go for a UWA or WA Lens or use your current lens and do a panorama stitch.
I should fit into your 'newbie' definition - I've used Nikon D90 for a year, and I was in the same dilemma, albeit different kind, as you - Canon or Nikon.
Personally, I always thought Canon has more vibrant colours, but I always wanted a Nikon. I read tons of reviews for six months and couldn't make up my mind. Was afraid of stepping into camera shops for fear of being dissed. Then one day, I went down to the camera shops and tried the cameras out. I like the ergonomics of Nikon and like even the way the menu is dished out in the screen. So it was Nikon in the end.
If I were a man, I would buy the then D300. It looked so solid, but so was the weight.
I had to settle for D90 but I realised that it is indeed a good camera compared to its predecessors eg. D40. I always shoot in JPEG, never RAW, becos the colours are good enough for me as long as I set the colour setting to 'vivid'.